DETAILED ACTION
This is the Office action based on the 18562071 application filed November 17, 2023, and in response to applicant’s argument/remark filed on May 8, 2026. Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been considered below. Claims 9-21 withdrawn from consideration. All referral to the specification in this Office action is directed to the published specification.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Claim Interpretations
Claim 1 recites “wherein the mixture film exists in homogeneous solid phase having the yttrium (III) oxide (Y₂O₃) completely and evenly dispersed in another of said at least two compounds”, while Claim 5 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the mixture film is composed of a mixture of aluminum (III) oxide (Al2O3) and yttrium(III) oxide(Y2O3) to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide (AlxY2-хO3), where x is greater than 1”. Claim 22 recites “the deposition layers having the first composition are mixture films composed of a mixture of at least two compounds, one of said compounds being yttrium compound yttrium (III) oxide (Y₂O₃), wherein said mixture films exist in homogeneous solid phase having the yttrium (III) oxide (Y₂O₃) completely and evenly dispersed in another of said at least two compounds” (emphases added). The specification teaches “(t)he expression “solid solution” is utilized is the present disclosure interchangeably with the expression “mixture film”. It is used to indicate a mixed layer of (nano)material, which exists in homogeneous solid phase having a second component completely and evenly dispersed in a solid medium” ([0070]) and further teaches “deposition of Al2O3 is followed with deposition of Y2O3. In this way, the “Y2O3” is completely and evenly dispersed in the solid medium (Al2O3 or other suitable “host” compound) to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide (AlxY2-xO3).” ([0073]). According to MPEP 2111.01 IV, “(t)he only exceptions to giving the words in a claim their ordinary and customary meaning in the art are (1) when the applicant acts as their own lexicographer; and (2) when the applicant disavows or disclaims the full scope of a claim term in the specification. To act as their own lexicographer, the applicant must clearly set forth a special definition of a claim term in the specification that differs from the plain and ordinary meaning it would otherwise possess. CCS Fitness, Inc. v. Brunswick Corp., 288 F.3d 1359, 1366, 62 USPQ2d 1658, 1662 (Fed. Cir. 2002)”. Therefore, for the purpose of examining it will be assumed that the term “solid solution” is utilized interchangeably with the expression “mixture film”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “The method of claim 1, wherein the relationship between the number of deposition cycles to deposit the first compound and the number of deposition cycles to deposit the second compound in the deposition sequence is 2-10 to 1, respectively”. However, the terms “the number of deposition cycles”, “the first compound”, “the second compound” and “the deposition sequence” in claim 3 lacks antecedent basis. For the purpose of examining it will be assumed that these terms are “a number of deposition cycles”, “a first compound”, “a second compound” and “a deposition sequence”, respectively.
Claim 5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The term “AlxY2-xO3” is not clear because when x=2 then the term “AlxY2-xO3” is not a mixture of aluminum (III) oxide (Al₂O₃) and yttrium (III) oxide (Y₂O₃), and when x>2 then the compound AlxY2-xO3 is not chemically possible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-8 and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Yasseri et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20230138555), hereinafter “Yasseri”:--Claim 1: Yasseri teaches a method of forming a multi-layer coating to protect components of a process chamber from plasma damages ([0003-0006, 0029]), comprising(i) providing a component of a process chamber ([0006]);(ii) depositing a stack comprising a conditioning layers 220 then a process, etch-resistant layer 216, ([0007,0034], Fig. 2B) by using atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0017]);(iii) repeating step (ii) a plurality of times (Fig. 1). Since the deposition is by using atomic layer deposition, each layer 220 and 216 is an atomic layer in thickness. Yasseri further teaches that the etch-resistant layer 216 may comprise a metal fluoride, such as a rare earth oxide or rare earth fluoride, such as yttrium oxide (Y2O3) ([0031]), and the conditioning layer 220 may comprise aluminum oxide (Al2O3) ([0033]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the multi-layer coating in the invention of Yasseri by alternately depositing by using ALD a layer of yttrium oxide (Y2O3) and a layer of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), as selected from the list of possible compounds taught by Yasseri. It is noted that repeating step (ii) would result in a sequence of(i) depositing conditioning layer 220 comprising aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (ii) depositing process layers 216 comprising yttrium oxide (Y2O3)(iii) depositing conditioning layer 220 comprising aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (iv) depositing process layers 216 comprising yttrium oxide (Y2O3)(v) depositing conditioning layer 220 comprising aluminum oxide (Al2O3) (vi) depositing process layers 216 comprising yttrium oxide (Y2O3)
and so on. Yasseri further teaches that the process layer 216 may be a layer of yttria-alumina composite ([0031]). Although Yasseri fails to disclose that the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, according to the specification, when a yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is deposited onto an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer, the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, denoted as Al2O3-Y2O3 or AlxY2-xO3 ([0070-0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form a mixture film having homogeneous solid phase comprising the yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃) completely and evenly dispersed in aluminum oxide (Al2O3), as taught by Applicant, in the invention of Yasseri. It is noted that, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In this case, since the atomic layer deposition of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer in the invention of Yasseri is the same as Applicant, such depositions would form such mixture film, as taught by Applicant. --Claim 2: It is noted that steps (i)-(iv), which are repeated a plurality of times, satisfy the limitation “each said deposition sequence comprises depositing a first compound in at least two deposition cycles followed with depositing a second compound in a single deposition cycle, the second compound being the yttrium compound”, as recited in claim 2.--Claim 3: Yasseri further teaches that the conditioning layer 220 may be thicker than the process layer 216 ([0018]), and that there may be an additional layer in between the conditioning layer 220 and the process layer 216 ([0019]). Since the deposition is by using atomic layer deposition, each layer 220 and 216 is an atomic layer in thickness. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to increase the thickness of the conditioning layer 220 by depositing a conditioning layer 220 as the additional layer (“A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton’). In making an obviousness determination one “can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.--Claim 4: It is noted that aluminum oxide (Al2O3) is distinct from the yttrium oxide (Y2O3)--Claim 5: It is noted that the mixture of the adjacent aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) would form a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide (AlxY2-xO3), as taught by Applicant (see Claim Interpretations of Claim 5 above). --Claims 6, 7, 8, 22, 23: Yasseri teaches the invention as above. Yasseri further teaches that the etch-resistant layer 216 may comprise an inorganic fluoride, or inorganic oxyfluoride ([0030]), including rare earth metal oxide or rare-earth oxyfluoride, or rare-earth fluoride, such as zirconium oxide, yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), etc. ([0031]). Yasseri further teaches that the conditioning layer 220 may comprise yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF),… ([0033]) Yasseri further teaches that the stack comprising the conditioning layer 220 and the process layer 216 may further comprise an additional layer ([0019]), such as a trilayer of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and yttrium oxide ([0035]). Although Yasseri does not disclose other possible chemical compounds for the additional layer it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) as an equivalent substitution for the zirconium oxide as the chemical compound for the additional layer. It is noted that yttrium fluoride (YF3) and yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) are metal fluorides. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the etch-resistant layer 216 or the conditioning layer 220 in a step after step (ii) above to be a rare-earth oxyfluoride or rare-earth fluoride, such as yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF). It is noted that this would read on the limitation “depositing, over a deposition layer consisting of the mixture film, an additional deposition layer composed of a metal fluoride” as recited in claim 6.
Claims 1-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lin et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20190185997), hereinafter “Lin”:--Claims 1, 4, 5: Lin teaches a method of forming a multi-layer coating to protect components, such as to protect components of a process chamber from plasma damages, by using atomic layer deposition (ALD) ([0002-0010]), wherein the multi-layer coating may comprise alternate layers of alumina (Al2O3) and yttria (Y2O3) ([0016, 0027, 0036-0041, 0050]), the method comprising(i) providing a component in a process chamber ([0055-0059]);(ii) supplying an aluminum-containing precursor, such as trimethylaluminum (TMA), and an oxidizer, such as O2, to form an alumina (Al2O3) atomic monolayer on the component ([0017, 0030-0032]); (iii) optionally purging the chamber ([0033-0034])(iv) supplying yttrium-containing precursors, such as, yttrium (III) tris (2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-3,5-heptanedionate), and an oxidizer, such as O2, to form a yttria layer on the component ([0034-0036, 0039, 0052]);(v) repeating step (ii) a plurality of times ([0029, 0050]). Lin further teaches that each layer of the multi-layer coating may comprise one of multiple such atomic monolayer (0019-0020, 0051, 0054]), and that the relative amount of alumina and yttria in the multi-layer coating may be selected to provide desired features, such as density, crystality, defects,…, and that the relative thickness of an alumina layer to a yttria layer may be 1:15 – 12:1 ([0047-0049]). Lin further teaches that the amorphous nature of the alumina layer causes the subsequent yttria layer to be amorphous ([0051]), and that each subsequent monolayer reacts with the previous monolayer to form a layer of deposited material ([0050]). Although Lin fails to disclose that the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, according to the specification, when a yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is deposited onto an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer, the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, denoted as Al2O3-Y2O3 or AlxY2-xO3 ([0070-0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form a mixture film having homogeneous solid phase comprising the yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃) completely and evenly dispersed in aluminum oxide (Al2O3), as taught by Applicant, in the invention of Lin. It is noted that, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In this case, since the atomic layer deposition of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer in the invention of Yasseri is the same as Applicant, such depositions would form such mixture film, as taught by Applicant. --Claims 2, 3: Since Lin teaches that each layer of the multi-layer coating may comprise one of multiple such atomic monolayer (0019-0020, 0051, 0054]), and that the relative amount of alumina and yttria in the multi-layer coating may be selected to provide desired features, such as density, crystality, defects,…, and that the relative thickness of an alumina layer to a yttria layer may be 1:15 – 12:1 ([0047-0049]), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to deposit two monolayers of alumina then a monolayer of yttria in the invention of Lin because "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)” (MPEP 2144.05)
Claims 6-8 and 22-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yasseri and Ameen et al. (U.S. PGPub. No. 20140099491), hereinafter “Ameen”:--Claims 6, 7, 8, 22, 23: Lin teaches a method of forming a multi-layer coating to protect components, such as to protect components of a process chamber from plasma damages, by using atomic layer deposition, wherein the multi-layer coating comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer, as shown above. Lin fails to teach the limitation “depositing, over a deposition layer consisting of the mixture film, an additional deposition layer composed of a metal fluoride”. Ameen teaches that fluorinating a yttria layer improve its toughness and resistance to cracking ([0049-0054]). Yasseri, also directed to a method of forming a multi-layer coating to protect components of a process chamber from plasma damages by using atomic layer deposition, wherein the multi-layer coating comprises aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer as a first layer, and yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer as a second layer, further teaches that the first layer may comprise yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF),… ([0033]) and the second layer may comprise an inorganic fluoride, or inorganic oxyfluoride ([0030]), including rare earth metal oxide or rare-earth oxyfluoride, or rare-earth fluoride, such as zirconium oxide, yttrium fluoride (YF3), yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF), etc. ([0031]). Yasseri further teaches that the multi-layer coating may further comprise an additional layer ([0019]), such as a trilayer of aluminum oxide, zirconium oxide, and yttrium oxide ([0035]). Although Yasseri does not disclose other possible chemical compound for the additional layer it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to use yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) as an equivalent substitution for the zirconium oxide as the chemical compound for the additional layer in the invention of Lin because Yasseri teaches that this would be effective for protection against plasma damage and Ameen teaches that this would improve the film toughness and resistance to cracking. It is noted that yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) is a metal fluoride. Alternately, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form the first or second layer in a step after the first cycle above to be a rare-earth oxyfluoride or rare-earth fluoride, such as yttrium fluoride (YF3) or yttrium oxyfluoride (YOF) in the invention of Lin because Yasseri teaches that this would be effective for protection against plasma damage and Ameen teaches that this would improve the film toughness and resistance to cracking.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 8, 2026 have been fully considered as follows:--Regarding Applicant’s argument that the previously cited prior arts do not teach the amended feature, this arguments is not persuasive. Specifically, although Yasseri fails to disclose that the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, according to the specification, when a yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is deposited onto an aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer, the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer is completely and evenly dispersed in the aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer to yield a solid solution of aluminum yttrium oxide, denoted as Al2O3-Y2O3 or AlxY2-xO3 ([0070-0073]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention, in routine experimentations, to form a mixture film having homogeneous solid phase comprising the yttrium oxide (Y₂O₃) completely and evenly dispersed in aluminum oxide (Al2O3), as taught by Applicant, in the invention of Yasseri. It is noted that, according to MPEP 2112, “[T]he discovery of a previously unappreciated property of a prior art composition, or of a scientific explanation for the prior art’s functioning, does not render the old composition patentably new to the discoverer.”, Atlas Powder Co. v. Ireco Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51 USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Thus the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977)”. In this case, since the atomic layer deposition of aluminum oxide (Al2O3) layer and the yttrium oxide (Y2O3) layer in the invention of Yasseri is the same as Applicant, such depositions would form such mixture films, as taught by Applicant. Nevertheless, to further clarify the Office action, a new ground of rejection based on newly found prior arts are shown above. It is noted that Lin discloses that the amorphous nature of the alumina layer causes the subsequent yttria layer to be amorphous ([0051]), and that each subsequent monolayer reacts with the previous monolayer to form a layer of deposited material ([0050]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP §706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS PHAM whose telephone number is (571) 270-7670 and fax number is (571) 270-8670. The examiner can normally be reached on MTWThF9to6 PST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Joshua Allen can be reached on (571) 270-3176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THOMAS T PHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1713
Prosecution Insights